RAILWAYS

Walter M. Shellshear, ASTC, FIE Aust,
Grad. M.C. of S. (U.K.)

The author is an Honorary Life Member of the Australian
Railway Historical Society. His own early career as a railway
engineer came to an untimely end when his cadetship with the
NSW Railways was terminated by the Depression in the 1930s.
His subsequent engineering career included service with the MWS
and D Board, Sydney; with the Department of Army during the
war years where he was responsible for the design of infantry
weapons; and at the time of his retirement in 1973 was Inspecting
Engineer, Civil Works, with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-
electric Authority.

THE early railways of the ACT were unique. With the
exception of the short branch line from Queanbeyan to
Canberra which opened in 1914, they came, they served
their purpose and they were gone, all in the space of about
eight years between 1920 and 1927.

These railways within the City area, in fact, can only be
regarded as having served as construction facilities,
although that was not the purpose for which the Kingston-
Civic line was planned. Although this might have become
part of Griffin’s plan — and this would have been indeed a
very worthwhile legacy to have inherited — fate determined
otherwise, when the bridge carrying the railway
over the Molonglo River was destroyed in a flood in July 1922
and was never rebuilt. So, although we did not inherit
anything directly from these early railways nor from the
grandiose plans for railway connections to Yass and Jervis
Bay, those that did eventuate certainly facilitated the
construction of the buildings which housed our early
parliamentarians and civil servants, and which became the
nucleus from which the present city of Canberra grew.

From another point of view, an engineering work may
qualify as a heritage item if it is associated with the work of
an outstanding figure — and who could be more worthy of
such an accolade than Walter Burley Griffin — a man
whose vision encompassed not only the overall plan of a
great city, but also the engineering services associated with
that city, including its railways.

One wonders in hindsight how much better off we
might have been today had Griffin’s detailed plan for a city
railway and for connections to the ‘Great Southern
Railway’ at Yass come to fruition.

Griffin, the Federal Capital Director of Design and
Construction from 1913 to 1920, achieved by his own
drive the construction of the railway to Civic Centre in
1920, causing not a little friction with the Commonwealth
Railways Commissioner, who wrote in 1928:

‘The Tramway was built without reference to the Commonwealth
Railways Commissioner. He was not consulted nor
was he responsible in any way for the building of the
tramway.’

It is little wonder that The Canberra Times of 16
December 1926 wrote:

Fig. 2.1: The NSW Rail System at the time of Federation.

‘Mr Burley Griffin, during a visit to Canberra, deplored the
backward policy regarding the development of the North
side of the River, which, he said, was the best portion of the
City. For this he blamed the lack of a railway’.

Before proceeding to a detailed examination of the
Territory’s early railways and of its planned railways
which never eventuated, it is of interest to note that, in that
short space of 8 years, and in such a small area, two more or
less unrelated railway developments took place, and that
these were of different rail gauges.

Had the Commonwealth Government’s plans of 1915—
1918 for an arsenal at Tuggeranong come to fruition, a
third and again, unrelated railway development would
have been included within the ACT in that same general
period.

However, impetus for railway construction in the
Federal Capital Territory was contained in the Seat of
Government Acceptance Act 1909 which provided that in
the event of the Commonwealth constructing a railway in
the Territory to its northern border, the State of New
South Wales would construct a railway from Yass (on the
main Sydney-Melbourne line) to join it, and that the
Commonwealth would have the right also to construct a
railway from the Territory to its proposed port at Jervis
Bay.

In the event, after the establishment of the Federal
Territory on 1 January 1911, the location of the site for the
Capital City being less than 8 km from the existing station
at Queanbeyan, NSW, (on the Goulburn-Cooma line) led
to the construction of a railway connection in 1914 for
goods traffic to facilitate the building of the City.
Queanbeyan, as part of the great expansion of the NSW
railway system in the 19th century, secured a station in
1887 which served the rural area which was to become the
Capital Territory after the establishment of the
Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.

Goulburn-Queanbeyan Connection

In 1869, the ‘Great Southern Railway’ of NSW from
Sydney had reached Goulburn. Twelve years later, the
NSW Parliament authorised the construction of a branch
line from Goulburn to Cooma via Queanbeyan and
borrowed a sum of £1,430,000 for its construction.

A tender for the construction of the first section, from
Goulburn to Bungendore, a distance of 64 km, was awarded to Topham, Angus and Co.,
who completed the line to Bungendore by March 1885.

Fig. 2.2: The Queanbeyan-Canberra Railway as at
1942. Diagrams — the author.

The next section of the Cooma line, from Bungendore to
Michelago, for which a contract was awarded to A.
Johnston & Co., was a difficult one. It involved three
tunnels, two bridges, steep grades and sharp curves around
very difficult, and in some places precipitous country —
particularly the approach into Queanbeyan, where the line
runs down the left side of the precipitous but beautiful
Molonglo Gorge. However, the contractors put up a very
competent performance, and by 8 September 1887, the
section to Queanbeyan had been completed, and the
extension to Michelago completed three months later.

For many years, one mixed train ran daily between
Goulburn and Queanbeyan (Sunday excepted), arriving
Queanbeyan at 5.55 a.m. and leaving for Goulburn at
9.10 p.m. On Saturdays the train left at 8 p.m. and like the
weekday train, did not proceed beyond Goulburn
By 1891, the line had reached Cooma.

Fig. 2.3:The first train to arrive at Canberra Railway Station in 1914.The engine was re-numbered 12/0 in the 1924
re-classification. Photo— Courtesy SKA of NSW.

How then did people get from Queanbeyan or Yass to
Canberra in these early but critical years before and
immediately after the establishment of the Capital Territory in
1911?

From the arrival of the railhead at Queanbeyan in 1887,
horse-drawn mail coaches served the immediate area, as
they did from all railheads as the State’s railway network
expanded. Horse drawn coaches operated from the
Queanbeyan railhead to Canberra, Cooma and many
other places on the Monaro, and at least one coach service
operated from Yass to Canberra.

The decision to construct a line from Queanbeyan to
Canberra was taken by the Prime Minister, Andrew
Fisher, in a letter to the NSW Premier in August 1911 after
an agreement was reached that the State would build the
line and that the Commonwealth would meet the cost, plus
a loading of 5 per cent of the total cost to cover the hire of
NSW Government plant.

Work commenced on 1 February 1913, under the supervision
of W.R. Beaver, Jnr, Chief Engineer, Railway and
Tramway Construction, Public Works Dept. of NSW,
TGG MacKay being his site engineer. Before its
completion, a ceremony was held at Canberra to officially
name the new Capital on 12 March 1913, and special trains
from Sydney and Melbourne brought guests as far as
Queanbeyan and Yass. From these stations they would
have travelled by car or horse drawn vehicle to Capital
Hill.

No doubt, the dust stirred up by the contractor’s earth
moving equipment on the Queanbeyan-Canberra line
contributed to an injunction contained in the official
timetable for the special trains to the ladies to wear their
dust cloaks! At the time the Queanbeyan-Canberra road
ran alongside the railway for most of the way.

The original surveys for the Canberra-Queanbeyan line
were carried out by Surveyor Marshall under the direction
of Charles Scrivener. Before construction commenced,
H.C. Deane, Chief Engineer Railway and Tramway
Construction, NSWGR, was asked to report on the suitability
of the route. After making his inspection he made
some minor changes, one of which was perhaps regrettable
in that it was used as an excuse to delay the commencement
of passenger services on the line for seven years. It was his
insistence that the new Canberra branch be connected to
the loop line at Queanbeyan and not to the main line.

Fig.2.4:Locomotive 1210 preserved on a plinth near Canberra Railway Station.(The 1927 station building may be seen in
the background). Photo — the author.

On 25 May 1914, the Administrator of the Department
of Home Affairs, Colonel David Miller, sent a telegram to
his Minister in Melbourne:

It was hauled by C-class engine No. 120 built by Beyer
Peacock of Manchester in September 1879, and which
followed very closely the design of the tank engine built by
the same firm for the London Metropolitan Railway. The
engine now stands on a concrete plinth near the present
Canberra railway station. Some changes have occurred
over its 100 years of service — a new boiler with Belpaire
firebox replaces the original boiler with round topped
firebox, the cow-catcher has gone, so have the kerosene
headlights and marker lights. In a general reclassification of
engines in 1924, its number was changed and it became No.
1210 of the Z12 class.

The locomotive was retired from active service in
January 1962 after having covered 1,900,000 km. In 1979 a
special steam-hauled train was operated by the Australian
Railway Historical Society, ACT Division, to celebrate
the hundredth birthday of Canberra’s historic locomotive.

The Canberra-Queanbeyan line was 6.58 kilometres in
length. The cost, as reviewed in February 1917 was
£47,120, some £10,000 above the estimate. Some of the
extra cost, however, was involved in repairing damage due
to a heavy storm on 17 March 1914.

The early history of the line is surrounded in mystery
and there is much confusion as to who wrote the specification
for the work. Only two years after the line opened,
a Royal Commission in 1916 was asking:

‘Was the railway to the Power House built in accordance
with, or contrary to the decision of the Minister? Was the
construction at a cost of £49,000 in lieu of a light railway or
tramway a justifiable expenditure of Public Moneys?
Was expense in excess of the estimate — if so is any officer
culpable in respect to the estimate or the expense?
Does the railway as constructed tend to destroy the
symmetry and one of the main features of Mr. Griffin’s plan?’

And in the following year the Commissioner of the
Commonwealth Railways was asked:

‘Was the original intention that the line should be of a
temporary character only — if so what was the estimated
cost of construction?

Under whose authority was it built as a permanent line,
and what estimates for its construction as a permanent
line were made, and by whom?

Were any special warnings received as to the necessity for
ample provision for the escape of water, from the
Administrator, or otherwise?

Who decided the route?

Were any alternative routes submitted?

Are there any notes respecting other routes examined by
the Location Surveyor?

Was the route adopted for the permanent line the same as
that proposed for the temporary line?’

Fortunately, even before construction of the
Queanbeyan-Canberra line commenced, the people of Queanbeyan,
apparently sensing some disagreement as to the
nature of the line, presented a petition to the Minister in
June 1912 asking that the line ‘be made of a substantial
character and suitable for a permanent railway line’. Two
months later King O’Malley, Minister for Home and
Territories, was asked ‘is the line to be temporary or
permanent?’ O’Malley replied, ‘it will be a permanent one’.

This statement provided an answer to most of the
questions put by a later minister for Home and Territories,
and must have been a comforting piece of information to
anyone whose neck may have been at risk from the findings
of the Royal Commission of 1916.

It is of interest to note, that, on hearing of the decision to
construct the later railway from Kingston to Civic Centre,
and no doubt mindful of the 1916 Royal Commission, The
Queanbeyan Age of 12 January 1917 published the following
pointed paragraph:

‘What oh! A start has been made of the railway from the
Power House Yasswards. Wonder will there be a Royal
Commission into this expenditure?’

In 1910-11 Surveyor Marshall had surveyed a rail
connection to the Goulburn-Cooma railway from the
capital site, joining the line near Bungendore. The original
intention, however, was to connect the site of the Capital
to Queanbeyan in order to provide transport facilities to
the City at an early stage. The 1911 Official Year Book of
the Commonwealth of Australia stated that, regardless of
this early intention, and because the line from Queanbeyan
to Bungendore had more than 11 km of one-in-40 gradient
and very sharp curves, the direct connection from the
Capital to Bungendore would place the railway transport
to the Capital on a more satisfactory basis than would exist
by connection to Queanbeyan.

There would appear therefore to be some justification
for the confusion surrounding the decision to go back to
the original intention of connecting with Queanbeyan —
which was obviously against the advice of the Surveyor
General.

With the arrival of steam trains in Canberra and the use
of other items of steam-operated plant, a dispute arose
between the Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Union and the
Department of Home Affairs which insisted that all engine
drivers should have a certificate of competence issued by
the Commonwealth. After a period, the Commonwealth
backed down, but as a face-saver the Minister for Home
Affairs issued the following statement:

‘On completion of the Power House, all works will be
erected using electric motors, with the exception of some
few steam traction engines, so that the number of steam
engine drivers will be small’.

The opening of the line was followed by the inauguration
of a daily service (Sundays excepted), but before the
line had been in operation for six months, the Minister
approved a reduction in the service to two trains only per
week, leaving Queanbeyan at 4.50 p.m. on Tuesdays and
Fridays and returning from Canberra at 6.10 p.m. On 18
September 1914, the officer at Canberra was withdrawn
and traffic to and from Canberra was treated under
‘platform and siding conditions’. Canberra was placed
under the control of the station master, Queanbeyan, and
the engine stationed at Queanbeyan for Canberra work
was withdrawn.

The Minister’s pessimism as to the value of the line
appeared to be justified by the revenue figures for the year
ended 30 June 1915, which recorded a loss of £598 despite
revenue of £1,040.

Before long the Director, Supply and Transport,
suggested the Commonwealth should consider the
practicability of running the service itself and that it would
be desirable to keep an engine at Canberra, and to run it as
required. E.E. Lucy, Chief Mechanical Engineer of the
NSW Railways, reluctantly agreed to the sale to the
Commonwealth of a CC class engine for about £2750.
However, the Administrator of the Federal Capital
Territory replied on 11 November 1914 he could see no
reason to buy the engine.

Threats to Close the Line

Little wonder then that the Department of Works and
Railways suggested the closing of the line as unprofitable
when the annual loss rose to £3182 in 1919. There was one
snag, however, how to get coal to the power house? One of
the suggested solutions was the use of horse traction on the
railway. Walter Burley Griffin thought that a ‘Slow Train’
was preferable, so long as the line could carry a locomotive.

A further proposal to close the line was made in May
1920 but fell upon deaf ears, and on 12 July 1920 the
Commonwealth Railways Commissioner advised that no
alteration to the existing services on the Queanbeyan-Canberra
line would be made. A reduction in expenditure
had been effected, he reported, by re-organising the
methods of maintaining and operating the line, and freight
rates had been increased to bring revenue up to operating
expenses.

Agitation for a Passenger Service

As early as October 1914, Queanbeyan was pressing for a
daily passenger service to Canberra. The Minister was
unimpressed and replied:

‘There is no justification for passenger services between
Canberra and Queanbeyan. The line was provided for the
conveyance of material for the purpose of establishing the
Seat of Government at Canberra.’

In a letter dated 11 October 1916, Burley Griffin wrote:

‘My proposal to establish a passenger service on this railway
is now before the New South Wales Commissioners.’

Griffin proposed the service should start from the power
house as he considered that the existing temporary station
was in the wrong spot.

The NSW Premier, replying to these proposals, said:

‘There was no direct connection with the power house
branch line at Canberra. It can’t start from that point. A
crossing could be provided but would involve alteration to
all signalling and interlocking. In the circumstances, the
train should run to, and start from the existing platform. At
Queanbeyan there are no means of getting off the branch
line to the platform and it would be necessary to lay in a
cross-over between the main line and the loop at the south
end of the station. This would need to be signalled and
interlocked. It was estimated this would cost £1029. It
would also be necessary to provide an engine and rolling
stock. The bare running expenses would be £32 per week. It
would be necessary for the Commonwealth to defray this
cost’.

Following this advice, W.M. Hughes told the Prime
Minister that he considered it inadvisable to incur the
additional expense and so passenger services were again
deferred.

A request for a steam tram service using ‘the old steam
tram’ and two cars, like the Cronulla tram service, was
then requested by Queanbeyan folk, but met with a similar
fate.

Horse coaches were still operating in 1916 between
Queanbeyan and Canberra as the NSW railway timetable
for that year contained the following details:

Township to which coach runs

Canberra

Railway from which coach starts

Queanbeyan

Miles from rail town

9

Leave railway town

6.00 a.m. Mon., Wed., Fri.

Arrive township

7.55 a.m.

Return journey, dep. Township

3.30 p.m. Tue., Thur., Sat. Arriv. 4.45

Fare, single

2/6

Fare, return

4/6

Township to which coach runs

Canberra

Railway from which coach starts

Yass Town

Miles from railway town

35

Depart railway town

7.30 a.m. Tue., Thur., Sat.

Arrive township

2.40 p.m.

Return journey, dep. Township

9.15 a.m. Mon., Wed., Fri.

Arrive railway town

5.00 p.m.

Fare, single

8/-

Fare, return

12/6

These services met trains which arrived at Queanbeyan
at 4.13 a.m. Mon., Wed., Fri., and which left Queanbeyan
for Sydney at 10.17 p.m. Tue., Thur., Sat. The Yass
service met trains which arrived at Yass Town at 4.28 a.m.
Tue., Thur., Sat. and which left Yass Town for Sydney at
5.18 p.m.

A motor service between Queanbeyan and Yass Town
also operated at this time and presumably ran via
Canberra. Its timetable was as follows:

Leave Queanbeyan

3.30 p.m. Tue., Fri.

Arrive Yass Town

6.00 p.m.

Leave Yass Town

9.30 a.m. Tue., Fri.

Arrive Queanbeyan

12.00 noon

Fare, single

22/6

Fare, return

40/-

Later, in 1920 the mail car service was amended to run
three days a week instead of two, the service being as
follows:

Leave Queanbeyan

9.30 a.m. Mon., Wed., Fri.

Arrive Yass

3.00 p.m.

Leave Yass

9.00 a.m. Tue., Thur., Sat.

Arrive Queanbeyan

3.00 p.m.

A further attempt to get a passenger service was made by
Queanbeyan’s Chamber of Commerce in September 1921.
The Chamber pointed out the difficulties of the existing
situation:

‘Until Federal Authorities provide houses for workers at
Canberra, it is necessary they find accommodation at
Queanbeyan, and as Queanbeyan does this, it relieves the
Commonwealth of immediate obligation. The difficulty of
workers getting to and from Canberra, horses, vehicles,
motor cycles, bikes, are a tax on their wages and a drain on
their energies’.

On 12 September, Senator Garling approached the
Minister with a view to obtaining agreement to carry
passengers on the Queanbeyan-Canberra railway.

‘If this facility was provided, he said, people at Acton and
Civic Centre, Molonglo and Duntroon would be able to
visit the picture shows at Queanbeyan, to inspect the shops
and so forth, and would then be more contented’.

Again the response was that the expenditure necessary
was not considered justified at present. Unsympathetic as
the attitude of the Government may have seemed to the
wishes of Queanbeyan and the needs of Canberra’s
construction workers, if one related the needs of the people to
the population of Canberra over these years, one can
perhaps understand why the government did not feel any
urgency to enter into new commitments. From a population
of 2780 in 1914 the district population actually fell to
2583 by 1921 — hardly the growth rate to justify the
expenditure of a large sum of public money.

The Government seemed determined that the new line
to Canberra should be regarded as a construction
expedient only, for the building of the Seat of Government,
and to judge from the following brief paragraph in
The Queanbeyan Age of 2 March 1923, maintenance costs
were being kept to an absolute minimum:

‘The decking of the bridge over the railway line at Molonglo
camp is very wobbly lately — some of the planking seems to
have no fastenings whatever, and the noise made by traffic in
crossing can be heard at some considerable distance away. It
is to be hoped the structure does not collapse while a heavy
load is on it some of these days’.

On 11 September 1923, R.F. Tetley announced his
intention to operate a regular ‘charabanc service’ between
Queanbeyan and Canberra calling at Molonglo Camp. It
was to have had seating for 40 people. Unfortunately for
Tetley, only a month after his charabanc service started, a
breakthrough was achieved with negotiations with the
Commonwealth Railways for a passenger service by rail to
Canberra.

When a through passenger rail service was finally
achieved to Canberra, The Canberra Times wrote:

‘Passengers for Canberra occupying either sleepers or
ordinary carriages will not be obliged this winter to
disembark in the dark and cold at Queanbeyan, then to
undertake an eight to ten miles run by car to Canberra’.

Commencement of Passenger Services

The decision was made on 10 October 1923, when the
Commissioner of the Commonwealth Railways informed
the Department of Works and Railways that, as the result
of representations made by NSW Railways, it had been
arranged that a passenger train service was to be instigated
between Queanbeyan and Canberra, commencing on 15
October 1923. The approved timetable was as follows:

Queanbeyan depart

7.10 a.m. Weekdays

Power House arrive

7.40 a.m. Weekdays

Power House depart

9.15 a.m. Mon. to Fri.

Queanbeyan arrive

9.45 a.m. Mon. to Fri.

Queanbeyan depart

3.45 p.m. Mon. to Fri.

Power House arrive

4.15 p.m. Mon. to Fri.

Power House depart

5.15 p.m. Mon. to Fri.

Queanbeyan arrive

5.45 p.m. Mon. to Fri.

Power House depart

12.15 p.m. Saturday

Queanbeyan arrive

12.45 p.m. Saturday

Passengers, said the timetable, should be conveyed by all
trains. Ample facilities were to be afforded for persons in
the Capital desiring to shop in Queanbeyan.

A small timber platform was provided at Molonglo (near
the present suburb of Fyshwick) where an internee’s camp
was established from 1918 to 1920. The camp later
provided married quarters for construction workers in
Canberra until 1927, when it was removed, but the timber
platform remained until 1941.

Early Timetables

The first timetable introduced when the line was opened
for passenger business, provided for two return trips each
week day and one on Saturdays. In less than two years this
was reduced to one trip per day, leaving Queanbeyan at
6.35 a.m. and returning from Canberra at 5.25 p.m. A
special Friday service from Canberra to Goulburn was
established in September 1926, to connect with the Sydney
and Melbourne expresses. A more satisfactory railway
timetable was introduced in 1927 and merited the
following headlines in The Canberra Times, 24 March 1927:

‘The Railway services to Canberra have been remodelled
and through trains have been provided daily, which obviate
the break of journey at Queanbeyan. On Monday last, with
the introduction of the rail motor service with Goulburn, a
new timetable came into effect. A through train to Sydney
with a sleeping car, leaves Eastlakes station on week nights,
and a train to Canberra connects with the mail from Sydney
every morning.

Five trains a day are now arriving at Canberra under the new
railway timetable which came into force on Monday last,
and Eastlake railway station has become indeed the railway
station of Canberra instead of Queanbeyan’.

It will be noted that these new services included a rail
motor service leaving Canberra at 9.17 a.m. and returning
at 6.40 p.m., allowing about 31/2 hours for shopping at
Goulburn. This service was cancelled six months later.

From 1927, through the early 1930s many changes of
timetables took place, mainly as the result of parliamentarians
seeking better services to their homes in Sydney and
Melbourne.

Early timetables setting out the rail services between
Canberra and Sydney and between Canberra and
Melbourne, consisted of small pocket folders, the outside
colour of which varied from issue to issue.

One Melbourne based politician demanded the addition
of a breakfast car to the pickup train from Goulburn. He
was informed by Chief Commissioner J. Fraser of the
NSW Government Railways that it was not possible to
arrive in Canberra in time for breakfast but this could be
obtained at Goulburn. NSWGR had no dining cars in
commission in June 1925, he said.

From the middle of 1926, sleeping cars from Melbourne
on Sydney-bound trains were detached at Goulburn and
attached to Canberra-bound trains. (This continued right
through to 1974, when sleeping cars from the Spirit of
Progress were detached and loco hauled into Canberra).

By 1930, lack of patronage was being felt as a result of
the Depression and the Department complained that some
of the services were ‘down to an absolute minimum — one
first class and one second class car, and only 25% filled’.

Sunday services to Sydney commenced on 7 November
1937 and continued in a modified form to the present day.

It might be wondered why the present timetable shows
very little improvement, compared with these early
timetables of the 1920s and 1930s, but the incentive which
brought about these early improvements is now gone.
Most members of Parliament living beyond Canberra now
travel by plane. However, in 1981 the NSW Railways
inaugurated a day return trip to Sydney, on six days a
week.

Later Deviations

The first few kms of the new railway were plagued with
troubles due to the inadequate storm water provisions.
Even during the construction period a heavy storm on 14
March 1914, followed by heavy rains on 2 April, washed
out sections on the track five kms from Queanbeyan. It
was reported the water rose some feet above the culverts
before the banks gave way.

After opening to traffic, the line was again badly
damaged by a flood on 22 February 1916 when banks were
damaged and the rails again washed out. Temporary
repairs were made, it was reported, to permit a train speed
of 4 m.p.h. (6.4 kph).

Then, in 1925, more serious flooding was experienced,
and it was agreed the line be diverted at a point
approximately three km beyond Queanbeyan, the
Commonwealth Railways agreeing to carry out the work. It is not
clear whether this work was ever done as the
Commonwealth Railways Commissioner stated in March of the
following year that he was unable to get on with the work
as funds had not been made available. It is clear however,
that the line must have been made serviceable for the
opening of Parliament on 9 May 1927.

In June 1928 proposals were recorded for the deviation
of the line because of ‘recent floods’. This report indicated
that the damaged areas were about five km beyond
Queanbeyan and at a second section near the
Jerrabomberra Ck crossing. At the first section, the remedial work
consisted of the erection of a stone piled wall and the
removal of the track 21 m back from the river, raising it
1.5 m above the original level. At the second section,
which, the report stated had been washed out in 1916, 1922
and 1925, the track was raised 1.8 m. The estimated cost of
the remedial work was £10,100. The earthworks of the
lower abandoned embankment at the first named site can
still clearly be seen.

In later years, further changes took place in the
Fyshwick-Canberra section. In May 1967 the
Queanbeyan-Canberra line was diverted to a new location south
of the original line between 6.4 km and 7.8 km from
Queanbeyan, to allow the earthworks for the new Main
Line and North Shunt Line to proceed. The diverted line
became the South Shunt Line serving sidings south of the
Main Line. A new and substantial high-level bridge was
constructed over Jerrabomberra Ck for the Main Line and
North Shunt Line, and a road overpass replaced the
Ipswich St. level crossing. Curve and grade easing also
took place between 3.5 and 5.1 km from Queanbeyan.

Fig. 2.6: The Terminus at 1956. Diagrams — the author.

Fig. 2.7: The 1980 Yard Layout. Diagram— the author.

A new freight terminal and connection between the new
freight terminal and the North Shunt lines were brought
into use on 6 January 1969. The North Shunt line forms the
second line across the new Jerrabomberra Ck bridge. At
about the same time the locomotive turntable and water
tower were removed. Newcastle Street over-bridge was
replaced by a new structure on a different alignment in
June 1969. This will allow extensions to the North and
South Shunt lines as required.

The Station Buildings

When the line was first opened in 1914, the terminus was at
the site of the present railway station. From the station
yard a branch line led to the power house and stores area. It
will be noted also from the details of the first passenger
timetable that at the time of commencement of passenger
services, the terminus was shown as ‘Power House’. In
April 1924, a 60 m long platform was constructed at the
present station site.

The first building was retained for various purposes after
the second building was erected in 1927.

In July 1925, the Department of Works and Railways
was asked to design a new station building for Canberra.
John Butters, the chairman of the Federal Capital
Commission, stressed that the station building was to provide
‘the absolute minimum of building accommodation’.

The Commissioner of the Commonwealth Railways
recommended against any re-alignment to the location
shown on the Griffin plans because of the heavy excavation
involved in the approaches to the Eastlake station. He felt
that the following work should be commenced at the
earliest possible moment: ‘The erection of a new station
building; improvement to the station yard; provision of a
ten ton crane; deviations near mileage 198M’.

Fig. 2.8: The 1914 station building (left) and the 1927 building(right).Photo-Australian Archives, Mildenhall
Collection.

Fig. 2.9: Plan of the 1927 station building. Diagram— the author, from data contained on Australian Archives files.

Mr Butters, who was anxious to have a suitable station
structure ready for the opening of Parliament, was more
than ready to agree. By early 1927, the work was
completed and the station platform extended to 600 ft (183 m)
in length.

It would appear that Mr Butters (later Sir John) may
have had cause to regret his injunctions regarding the
absolute minimum of building accommodation, as later
extensions to the eastern end of the building almost
doubled its floor area.

The second building was never regarded as an
outstanding piece of architecture and it became known to the
station staff as the old tin building because of the pressed
metal external sheeting. By the late 1950s, the old No. I
station had deteriorated to the stage where, by virtue of the
attention of vandals and others, it was no longer an object
of beauty, and the second station was not held in much
higher regard.

In October 1966, both the No. I and No. 2 stations were
replaced by the present structure, a building far more in
keeping with the Nation’s capital than its predecessors.

Whilst the history of the railways of the ACT dates
from relatively recent times, searchers for historic relics
will be pleased to learn that the lever for the points at the
Southern Portland Cement siding at Fyshwick was made
by J. Toumbe of Kilkenny in 1886.

The City Railway

Griffin’s prize-winning design for the layout of the Federal
Capital City in 1912 provided for a railway serving the
southern, eastern and northern parts of the city. On being
informed of the success of his entry, Griffin came to
Canberra in 1913 and after checking the feasibility of his
railway proposals on site, made some very minor
alterations to his plans.

Griffin’s railway started at a point a mile or so inside the
boundary of the Territory near Queanbeyan. To assist in
identifying the route proposed for Griffin’s railway, it has
been plotted onto a current Canberra street map (Fig.
2.16). The station names are those given by Griffin. From
the Kingston Power House area, the line ran almost due
north on a raised embankment named by Griffin ‘The
Causeway’. In his early plans the Causeway appears as a
physical division between East Basin and East Lake, the
latter a somehwat ambitious feature of Griffin’s plan which
has not yet eventuated.

Immediately north of his Central Station, the line was to
run into a tunnel 1400 ft (427 m) long, and an
underground station was contemplated at Civic Centre, located
at the foot of Ainslie Avenue.

Griffin’s estimate of the cost of his railway was £72,879,
of which the tunnel accounted for £43,126. It was to be
built with a ruling grade of 1 in 100, with 40 chain (800 m)
minimum radius curves, and was to have been double track
with a rather far sighted provision for quadruplication
later.

Alternative City Routes

Although Griffin was Federal Capital Director of Design
and Construction, his plans were submitted on 24 June
1915 to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public
Works for investigation and report, as some doubts were
felt as to the suitability of the route. To resolve some of
these doubts the matter was referred to the
Commonwealth Railways Commissioner who promptly put
forward a number of alternatives. These alternative routes,
with the estimated cost of each are shown in the
accompanying figure which is a reproduction of the diagram
which accompanied the Standing Committee’s report.

In its findings the Standing Committee reported:

‘While the Committee approves the general direction of the
permanent City Railway as indicated by Mr Griffin on the
schematic plan, subject to a deviation to eliminate the
tunnel, and following generally the route Cl suggested by
Mr Bell (the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner), it is
of the opinion that there is no reason for the construction of
anything but temporary surface lines until the development
of the City warrants the construction of the permanent line’.

The Standing Committee believed that a temporary
surface line, 5 m 11 ch (8.2 km) could be built for £5,156,
which could be capable of handling ‘material and light
traffic’.

Construction Railway to Civic

Following the announcement of the findings of the
Standing Committee; Griffin approached the Minister for
Home Affairs, King O’Malley, in October 1916, for
authority to construct the tramway 5.2 km long, for which
he had prepared plans. This was promptly granted.

There does not appear to be any record of work having
commenced till December 1920, when the NSW Railways
Commissioner agreed to carry out the work on the same
terms as applied to the construction of the Queanbeyan-Canberra
line, i.e., the Commonwealth would pay all
costs plus 5% of the total cost to cover hire of plant. All the
materials remaining from the construction of the
Queanbeyan-Canberra line were to be used. However,
this decision coincided with the termination of Griffin’s
position as Federal Capital Director of Design and
Construction and his association with the development of
Canberra.

Fig. 2.11

Fig. 2.12: Civic Centre platform of the 1921-22construction railway, after rails had been lifted.
Construction was of timber facings backfilled
with soil. Photo — B.T. Macdonald.

Survey data was prepared and the work commenced
under the direction of Sub-foreman J. Doyle of the NSW
Railway and Tramway Department. Details of the
chainages, surface levels, formation levels, cuts, fill and
gradients use are recorded on file at Australian Archives.

During the construction of the work, a locomotive, six
trucks, a rest van, locomotive crew and a guard were
requested by the Commonwealth. The NSW Railway
Commissioner replied that as his Department was doing
the work he would provide what was necessary.

On 15 June, the Director of Works advised that
construction of the line was complete and that it was open for
goods traffic. It is recorded that the line was also used for
limited passenger transport in the guards van.

The route taken by the construction tramway, which
cost £5,370 to build, branched off from the Power House
siding only a few yards from what is now Cunningham
Street, Kingston, and ran out onto a raised embankment
running almost due north from the Causeway settlement
to the Molonglo River. Jerrabomberra Ck. Creek and the
Molonglo River were crossed by rather flimsy timber
trestle bridges. Griffin, during a visit in 1926, admitted
that the bridge across the Molonglo had been only of a
temporary character, and with the funds available, it had
been impossible to construct a structure of sufficient
strength to stand the great floods which had assailed it.

After crossing the Molonglo River, the line swung
north-west in long easy curves which straightened out to
run on a track somewhat to the south of today’s Amaroo
Street, Reid, behind St. John’s Church and the site of the
present TAFE College. Beyond that location, the line then
passed to the north to a short platform located almost in the
centre of what is now Garema Place. Beyond this point, the
line branched into a short marshalling yard terminating
near Eloura Street, Braddon.

A fairly long siding was provided just to the north of the
river crossing which no doubt served a worker’s camp at
Russell Hill and Duntroon.

Official Circular No. 189, issued on 14 June 1922 to
“Station Masters, Guards, Engine Drivers and all others
concerned” by the Chief Traffic Manager of the NSW
Railways, promulgated the following instructions for the
operation of the Queanbeyan — Civic Centre Railway:

‘Speed Restrictions — The speed of trains and light engines
from Queanbeyan to Civic Centre Sidings must not exceed
six (6) mph. When passing over the Molonglo Bridge, and
for three quarters of a mile to or from Civic Centre
Terminus, speed must be reduced to four (4) mph.

Locomotives — Two engines coupled may be run on the
Canberra line as far as the Power House Siding, but not
between Power House Siding and Civic Centre. Standard
goods locomotives, classes D50, D53 and D55 are not
permitted beyond Power House Siding.’

Termination of Services

However, after a total of less than one and a half years of
official instruction for the operation of the line, disaster
overtook the railway in July 1922 when a major flood in the
operation, and only a month after the issue of the first
Molonglo River carried away the supports of the
temporary bridge and lowered the rails into the water.

A closer study of the bridge photograph might suggest
why this failure took place. Had the piers of the skew
bridge been aligned in the direction of flow of the river and
not at right angles to the bridge centre line, the bridge may
have stood a better chance of survival.

In November 1922, and only four months after the loss
of the bridge, the Federal Capital Advisory Committee
said it was not proposed to carry out any work in
connection with the temporary city railway station until
approval had been given for the reconstruction of the
railway bridge over the Molonglo.

Fig. 2.15: The Molonglo bridge after the July 1922 floods. The bridge was never rebuilt. Photo-Australian Archives,
Mildenhall Collection.

Meanwhile, discussion regarding responsibility for
management of the ‘Seat of Government Railway’ had
culminated in the issue of ‘An Ordinance Relating to the
Management of the Seat of Government Railway’ (No. 8 of
1923).

The Schedule of the Ordinance included the Kingston-
Civic Railway, although at the date of issue of the
Ordinance, the Civic Centre Railway had been out of
operation for 14 months.

The Federal Capital Commission, two and a half years
later, again advised that it had not completed its enquiries
sufficiently to make a definite recommendation regarding
the railway bridge replacement. The Commission said the
re-design of the bridge would take some time. Shortly
afterwards, the Minister approved the preparation of plans
by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner for
bridges over the Jerrabomberra Creek and the Molonglo
River.

In the meantime, agitation for the restoration of a
railway service to Civic Centre grew in volume. The
Canberra Times carried headlines:

‘The City Railway is Essential to the Economical
Development of the Federal Territory.
Immediate Consideration by the Public Works Committee
of railway communication with Canberra has become a
matter of vital concern to the development of the city.’

It went on to say, in its leading article:

‘In one respect it had regretfully to be admitted that
Canberra is less favourably equipped than it was five years
ago. Five years ago there was a city railway and trains ran to
Civic Centre . . . If it were fitting that the railway should be
provided from Eastlake to Civic Centre at a cost of more
than £5,000 in 1921, that railway is more imperative today at
double or treble the cost’.

In Parliament a question was asked in 1928:

‘Is the Minister aware that tradesmen and business men at
Civic Centre and Ainslie Avenue are being penalised by the
heavy cost of transport from the present railway site to
places of business, and anxiously await a decision on the
question of re-opening of the line to Ainslie station — when
will the line be re-opened?’

The reply received was:

‘There had never been a public line for railway traffic to
Ainslie — it was a construction tramway only and was put
out of commission by floods in July 1922. It is expected it
will be at least 12 months before present investigations will
be complete’.

Later Alternatives to the City Railway

Despite the demise of the construction railway in 1922, the
idea of a permanent city railway to eventually connect with
a line to Yass was still a live issue. A Parliamentary
Standing Committee of 1924, which had recommended
that the line be terminated as near as possible at mileage
2051/2 from Sydney, had described proposals as they then
stood as follows:

‘It is now proposed to abandon the existing line from Power
House to Civic Centre, and commence from a point one
mile from the Power House on the existing line from
Queanbeyan, to construct a railway through the City to the
North boundary of the Federal Territory. From whence it
will be an obligation on the N.S.W. Government to
continue the line to connect with its system in the vicinity of
Yass Junction, as agreed in the Seat of Government
Acceptance Act of 1909. The starting point was marked as
199 1/2 miles on the existing line from Sydney to Canberra
and a distance of approximately three miles from
Queanbeyan and three miles from the City boundaries. Then it was
to run West, following for some distance Lakebourne
Avenue, crossing the Jerrabomberra Creek at a point higher
up than the existing crossing. Then it turns North through a
deep cutting into Eastlake Circle, crosses the Jerrabomberra
Creek again and then almost due North to cross the
Molonglo river at 202 3/4 miles, at a point about three miles
from the Power House. A high embankment 16 ft high will
cross the country either side of Jerrabomberra Creek and
between the creek and the Molonglo River.
Beyond the River, it bears away in a north-westerly
direction at 1 in 73 grade on a route slightly departing from
the Griffin route, and also from the temporary line he built
to Civic Centre. It runs almost midway between the two,
passing the Junction of Capital Terrace and The Parade. At
this point it will pass through a ‘tunnel’ (it will actually be an
open cutting covered to enable streets to cross here). Then it
will proceed along the ProspectParkway, dropping down a
little till it reaches Civic Centre. It is proposed to put the
station on Ainslie Avenue close to Civic Centre and
below surface, to avoid interference with street crossing.
At this point Griffin’s plans provided for a curve but a
straight line has been substituted in order to avoid a station
on a curve. After leaving Civic Centre it turns again almost
North and following the railway reservation, crosses
Interrange Avenue at 206 m 8 ch. (All mileages measured
from Sydney Central Station).
Near the 207 mile point, the line leaves the City area and
bends away to the North-east, following that direction to
about 214 miles, where again it turns north, crosses the
Federal Territory boundary at 216 m 8 ch at about 1 1/2 miles
west of Hall.
The total distance is 16 m 48 ch., and is laid in single track,
standard gauge with 80 lb rails and 4 1/2” x 9” x 8’0”
sleepers. The ruling grade will be 1 in 66, and the minimum
radius curve 20 chains. There is provision for stations at
Eastlake Circle, Prospect Parkway, Civic Centre and at
three points between Civic Centre and Hall. It is proposed
to place the goods shed at 206 3/4 miles at about 1 1/2 to 1 3/4
miles north of Civic Centre.’

Fig. 2.16: Griffin’s proposed City Railway of 1912 plotted onto a current Canberra street map, together with the
brickworks railway and the Kingston to Civic construction railway.

Mr Butters, Commissioner of the Federal Capital
Commission, in May 1925, stated that he disliked the
Griffin route for the Canberra-Yass railway, especially the
deep cuttings involved. He felt it should be possible to skirt
the lower slopes of Mt. Ainslie, and then run out about the
centre of Majura Avenue and along the centre of the
industrial area on the surface, with only sideling cuttings.
His connection to the City station was near Civic Place
(now know as Vernon Circle) by a branch line along the
central parkway of Ainslie Avenue.

Accordingly, three alternative routes between the North
side of the Molonglo Crossing and a point on the
Canberra-Yass line a few miles north of the Civic Centre
were investigated:

1. Via Parkway Avenue, through Prospect Place (at the
head of Anzac Parade near the War Memorial) and
thence via Canberra Avenue and Ainslie Avenue, thence
following the general direction of the stormwater drain at
the base of Mt. Ainslie.

2. Via Prospect Parkway and Prospect Place, thence
through the area reserved for the War Memorial, then
east of a knoll at the intersection of Ainslie and Canberra
Avenues, (now Limestone Avenue) after which it also
followed the stormwater drain.

3. Via a circuit on the north-east of the War Memorial site,
then north to the knoll and the stormwater drain.

These alternatives were closely examined and finally
rejected in March 1929 by Sir John Butters, (who was made
a knight after the opening of Parliament in 1927) in favour
of the route recommended by the Parliamentary Standing
Committee of 1915-16. Sir John recommended the
Molonglo bridge be designed for one track and a roadway,
the roadway later to become a second rail track when
traffic warranted.

In October of the same year an estimate was made for the
so-called ‘through city’ railway. The estimated cost of
£532,605 included a bridge over Jerrabomberra Creek with
three 200 ft spans, and one over the Molonglo River with
five 200 ft spans. The Federal Capital Commission was
abolished in 1930 and there was a lapse of four years before
the railway was discussed at a meeting of the
Commonwealth Advisory Council in May 1934 which stated in part:

‘The Council considered it would be a difficult task to design
a bridge over the Molonglo that would withstand floods,
and according to the accepted design, the railway is
supposed to traverse along the Causeway and in this
position, the crossing of the Molonglo River is oblique to the
direction of the stream and would be unsatisfactory for a
bridge. The same applies to the crossing of the
Jerrabomberra Creek. Thus the erection of a bridge for railway traffic
would be an exceedingly costly matter as the bridges are over
low-lying land liable to flood’.

On 3 September 1934, the Canberra Chamber of
Commerce queried the advisability of building a bridge
over the Molonglo for a railway. The Chamber was
advised that there was no provision in the current year’s
estimates. In the event of the Government deciding at a
later date, estimates would be put in hand.

The ‘later date’ has not yet arrived.

The rails of the old construction railway remained in
place for many years before being finally lifted. The points
where the construction railway branched off from the
Power House siding were removed in December 1934,
effectively putting an end to that chapter of the Territory’s
railway history.

The Brickworks Railway

One of the most obvious prerequisites to the speedy
establishment of a Seat of Government in an open, relatively
uninhabited area such as the undeveloped site of
Canberra, was an adequate supply of good bricks. No time
was lost therefore in seeking out a suitable local site for a
brickworks, and satisfactory clays were found at
Yarralumla, or ‘Westridge’ as Griffin had named it. Here the
Commonwealth Brickworks was established in 1913.

The next prerequisite was an effective means of
transsporting the bricks to where they were required for the
construction of the Power House, Parliament House,
Hotel Canberra, and the other public buildings and
offices.

Fig. 2.17: The 3’-6” (1067 mm) gauge brickworks railway
passing the old Parliament House. Bricks
transported on the railway were used in the
building’s construction. Photo — Australian
Archives, Mildenhall Collection.

At first, the bricks were moved by steam traction
engines hauling heavy, iron wheeled trailers on mostly
unmade roads. As can be imagined, this soon proved
unsatisfactory and time consuming, and it is on record that
the traction engines only achieved two round trips a day
between the brickworks and Parliament House.

The inevitable decision was therefore taken to construct
a light railway as demand for more effective transport
increased, and by the end of 1923 a 3’-6” (1067 mm) gauge
steam hauled railway was in operation for the conveyance
of bricks to the expanding construction works.

The southern terminus of the railway was at the Power
House, although existing records do not show clearly how
far the 3’-6” gauge extended southwards from the Power
House building, other than to connect with a small engine
shed.

After the failure of the standard gauge construction
railway to Civic Centre, the brickworks tramway was
extended to Civic, crossing the Molonglo River on a small
timber bridge near the Scotts Crossing Road. There is
evidence to indicate that in the city area, the abandoned
standard gauge track may have been used by moving one
rail 14 1/2 inches across on the existing sleepers to form the
narrower gauge. It is believed the brickworks tramway
terminated about 40 ft beyond the Civic Centre platform.

In the clean-up prior to the opening of Parliament
House on 9 May 1927, and possibly also because it had by
that stage become more economical to transport the bricks
by motor lorry, the tramway was removed.

Fig. 2.18: The bridge over the Molonglo River which carried the brickworks railway extension into Civic Centre (looking
north east). Photo — Australian National Library.

It is of interest to note that, at the time of the closing of
the tramway, the capacity of the brickworks was 6,000,000
bricks per annum.

Rolling Stock

To operate the railway, the Government transferred two
Kitson 0-6-0 tank locomotives from the Henderson Naval
Base in WA in 1923. These two locomotives had a colourful
history, having been bought originally by the West
Australia Lands Co. in 1881 for work on the wharves
at Albany and elsewhere. They were known as ‘Princess’
and ‘Duchess’, and were purchased by the WA
Government in 1896 when they were numbered 162 and 163 of the
“S” class. The engines worked on the WA Government
Railways until 1915, when they were purchased by the
Commonwealth Government for the construction of the
Henderson Naval Base.

When transferred by the Commonwealth for service at
the brickworks, locomotives 162 and 163 were re-numbered
Nos. I and 2 respectively.

When the tramway was extended to Civic Centre, a
third locomotive, an 0-4-2 Hudswell Clarke tank
locomotive, was purchased from the Wallaroo Mines Ltd. of
SA. The locomotive was 20 ft (6.1 m) long, weighed 14
tons (14.2 tonnes) and had 10” (254 mm) diameter
cylinders, supplied with steam at 150 psi (1034 kPa). With
a driving wheel diameter of 2’-6” (762 mm) its tractive
effort was only slightly greater than that of the ex “S” class
locomotives.

A timber framed side-tipping truck was used for the
conveyance of the bricks, each truck holding about 500
bricks.

On the termination of the railway in 1927, the
equipment was put up for sale. The three locomotives were
purchased by the NSW Associated Blue Metal Quarries
No. 1 going to Prospect Quarry, No. 2 to Bass Point
Quarry near Shellharbour, and the Hudswell Clarke
engine to Bombo.

Some of the side tipping trucks were also bought by Blue
Metal Quarries.

Fig. 2.21: The Power House terminus of the Brickwork’s railway. The loaded truck at the right of the photograph shows
the random manner in which the trucks were loaded (breakage rate is not known!). Also on the extreme right of
the picture may be seen the little engine shed where the locomotives were stabled. One of the locomotives is
standing near the workshop building. Photo — Australian Archives, Mildenhall Collection.

So the brickworks railway came to an end and was soon
forgotten, but a number of famous and now historic
buildings remain as testimony to the engineering skills of
those who conceived this facility for their construction.

At time of writing, the only remaining evidence of this
once extensive 3’-6” gauge railway network is the
formation between Denman Street, Yarralumla and the
west side of the brickworks area.

OTHER LITTLE KNOWN RAILWAYS

One other minor facet of the ACT’s railway history
remains to be recorded. At the brickworks and the Mugga
and Mt Ainslie Quarries, and on some of the earliest
construction projects, in the days before the internal
combustion engine had made its impact felt, small narrow
gauge tramways — what one might almost call ‘back-yard
railways’ — were employed to move material won at the
quarry face or for aggregate movement between crusher
and concrete mixer.

Brickworks Quarry Tramway

At the Commonwealth brickworks at Yarralumla, a 2 ft
(610 mm) gauge tramway was laid in the quarry area in
such a way that the loaded trucks ran downhill to the
works and the empty trucks were pushed back by
manpower. These little tramways were very flexible and were
easily moved along as the quarry face advanced.

The trucks used at the brickworks and other quarries
were side tipping steel trucks, made by Francis Theakston
Ltd., Light Railway Engineers, Crewe Works, 66 Tufton
Street, London.

Mugga Quarry Tramway

This differed a little from the brickworks tramway in that it
extended beyond the confines of the works and was used to
convey the material won in the quarry to the Mugga Lane
where there was obviously a facility for tipping the
material from the trucks into some form of road transport.

The little tramway from the quarry to Mugga Lane is
clearly shown on a ‘Plan of Canberra the Federal Capital of
the Commonwealth of Australia’ published by the Federal
Capital Commission from the First Premiated Designs by
Walter Burley Griffin and from surveys conducted under
the direction of C.R. Scrivener, late Director of Lands and
Survey, with approved detailed modifications of designs to
May 1927. A copy of this map is held at the National
Library, Canberra.

Although much man-handling of the trucks took place
in the quarry area, a small petrol engine built by Purcell
Engineering, was provided to work between the crusher
and Mugga Lane. It is possible that the locale of the engine
photo is the point at which the trucks’ contents were
unloaded into motor or other forms of road transport.

Between the quarry and the crusher house, a cableway
was used to lower the loaded trucks from the quarry area
and to raise the empty trucks back to the quarry. The
trucks were raised and lowered by cable actuated by a small
haulage engine. A similar haulage way was operated at the
Mt Ainslie Quarry.

Construction Tramways

From photos still in existence, it is evident that the identical
side tipping trucks were used during the construction of
Cotter Dam in 1913 and of the Weston Creek Sewerage
Works in the l920s, for movement of aggregate between
crusher and concrete mixers, although the method of
propulsion is not clear from these photos. An excellent
photograph of the Cotter Dam tramway and of the steam
powered crusher appears in Alan Fitzgerald’s ‘Historic
Canberra 1825-1945’.

Fig. 2.23: The end of the line. Ex-Brickworks Railway
locomotive ‘Princess’ laid to rest at the Prospect
Quarry after disposal by the Brickworks.
Photo — R.S. Minchin Collection.

The Railway Gun

The “Amiens” gun was a 180 tonne German, 28 cm
railway gun, 22 m long, 2.64 m wide with a range of 24,000
metres. It fired a shell weighing 300 kg and wrought
considerable havoc on the French city of Amiens during
World War 1.

On 8 August 1918, in the course of a successful
operation by the Australian Corps, the 31st Battalion,
when advancing near Harbonnieres, noticed a train
steaming up and down a track about 730 metres away. The
train comprised a railway gun, coaches for the crew and an
ammunition truck. After it had fired a few rounds the train
was attacked from the air and a great explosion followed.
Shortly afterwards, the Battalion reached its objective
some 180 m short of the gun. Two or three hours later,
Gunner Geo. Burrows and Sappers Strachan and Palmer, 5
Aust. Division Engineers, went out under heavy machine
gun fire, raised steam on the engine, coupled up to the gun
and ammunition truck and brought it back within the
Australian lines.

Fig. 2.26: Construction tramway at Cotter Dam. The
wall of the dam, prior to the raising of its height,
may be seen in the middle distance. Photo:
Australian Archives, Mildenhall Collection.

Fig. 2.27: The Mugga Quarry cableway. The foundations of the crushing plant at the foot of the slope are still in evidence
near the present vehicle parking bay. Photo: Australian Archives, Mildenhall Collection.

The gun was later exhibited in London and Paris and was
eventually sent to Sydney where it was on display for some
time before being consigned to Canberra for the proposed
War Memorial on 16 May 1923. Some days later, the
railway gun arrived at Molonglo where it was placed at the
platform siding. This was some six months before
passengers were carried on the Queanbeyan-Canberra
railway. However, the arrival of the gun did not pass
unnoticed. The Molonglo correspondent of The
Queanbeyan Age wrote, on 29 May:

‘Big Bertha is still the centre of attention. Numerous visitors
call on her daily. One wonders what the lady’s reflections
must be at being exiled away from her kith and kin, and
worst of all, in a place where her countrymen were interned.
It must be galling enough to make her go “pop”’.

On 27 June 1924, the gun was moved away from the
platform to the position shown on the diagram so that the
platform to the position shown in Fig. 2.29 so that the
intended — the loading and unloading of freight. Here it
stood until May 1927, during which time it was much
damaged and disfigured by vandals. In that month it was
moved to Kingston and placed on a temporary track near
Wentworth Avenue, no doubt as an attraction for visitors
attending the opening of Parliament
. The cost of its
removal from Molonglo was £761. In March 1935, the gun
was repainted and four years later a light fence was erected
around it to discourage vandalism.

Fig. 2.29: The Molonglo siding in 1924, showing where
the railway gun was located between 1923 and
1927 before being removed to the Kingston
station yard. Diagram from data on file at
Australian Archives.

Its subsequent history is a sad one. During World War II,
its mountings, bogies and lifting hydraulics were taken off
for use elsewhere in Australia on the condition that they be
returned on the cessation of hostilities. They were never
returned and the barrel, a rather sorry remnant of a
magnificent piece of machinery, is now displayed at the
Australian War Memorial.

RAILWAYS THAT WERE NOT BUILT

Arsenal Railway

There were proposals for the establishment of a
Government Arsenal at Tuggeranong during World War I. Many
and varied schemes were considered for connecting the
various sites proposed to the NSW Railways system. In
the last of these proposals put forward in October 1918,
before the whole project was abandoned, the branch
railway was to leave the Queanbeyan-Cooma line just
north of the Jerrabomberra Creek crossing and run parallel
to that line for a considerable distance. This was because
the Cooma line climbed at a grade of 1 in 40 for about three
miles beyond that junction, and the NSW Railways would
not permit a branch on such a steep grade.

In early deliberations regarding rail access into the
complex, the following requirements were laid down:

‘The connecting line into the NSW Railway system was to
be 4’-81/2” (1435 mm) gauge.

‘The connection must be such as will admit of taking any
NSW Railway goods stock.

‘Provision should be made for future duplication.

‘Branch lines connecting ammunition groups and cordite
factories should be operated by the Arsenal authorities.
Whether they should be standard gauge or narrow gauge has
not yet been determined’.

In a report by Walter Burley Griffin dated 13 March
1917, he stated that five miles (8 km) of electric tramways,
at an estimated cost of £10,000 per mile, were contemplated
to provide for Arsenal connections.

Canberra — Jervis Bay Railway

The Seat of Government Act provided that the Territory
acquired for the Seat of Government was to have access to
the sea at Jervis Bay.

By 1909 an exploration of the country between
Canberra and the seaport had been carried out by C.R.
Scrivener, Director, Commonwealth Lands and Survey,
the route being plotted by Scrivener onto a copy of the
Department of Mines map of the Mining Districts of
NSW, which is at present held in the National Library.

A later Trial Survey, carried out by Surveyor Marshall,
was finished in November 1914 and included a direct
railway connection from Civic Centre to a point about 16
km north of Bungendore, keeping to the north side of the
Molonglo River.

Fig. 2.30: The 1918 proposals for a branch railway from the Goulburn-Bombala Railway to the site of the proposed Tuggeranong
Arsenal. Plotted by the author from the data contained in Australian Archives files and from information
researched by Mr T.F.C. Lawrence, AM, FIE Aust.

The length of the Canberra — Jervis Bay Trial Survey
was 225 km, with 1.6 km of bridges, 1180 metres of
tunnels, and construction of the line was estimated to cost
£1,747,670. However, despite periodic agitation for
construction of the line the Commonwealth Surveyor
General reported on 5 October 1921:

‘I do not think there is the slightest hope of any development
work being undertaken for a long time’.

That is still the present situation.

Nowra — Jervis Bay Connection

The matter of an extension of the South Coast Railway
from its present terminus at Bombaderry to Jervis Bay
appears to have been first raised in 1909, when the
Director-General of Works proposed that the railway
should be extended to serve the Jervis Bay Naval College.

Three years later the NSW Premier stated he was
favourable to the construction of a railway to Jervis Bay.
At the same time Surveyor Marshall was asked to locate a
section of the proposed Canberra-Jervis Bay railway from
the Bay to a point one mile west of the Nowra Road, to
which the section from Nowra might be joined, and so save
the cost of a separate line into Jervis Bay. The trial line to
this point was completed on 29 May 1912.

In the same year, a Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Public Works found that the line would involve heavy
loss, estimated at £9,000 annually.

Although the NSW Premier suggested that the
Commonwealth should make some provision in connection
with any loss, the suggestion was turned down, Prime
Minister Fisher reaffirming on 18 August 1915, that the
Government was not prepared to defray any portion of the
loss on the line.

The matter was raised again in the following year in a
letter to King O’Malley, Minister for Home Affairs, but
the Secretary of the Department wrote on 17 April 1916
that: ‘There is not much interest in the railway between
Nowra and Jervis Bay’. At this stage the proposal,
understandably, lapsed. Fifty-four years later there was a revival
of interest in the line. In 1970, it was reported that the
NSW Government had agreed to extend the Illawarra Line
from Bomaderry to Jervis Bay, a distance of about 32 km,
if the American Armco Steel Consortium decided to go
ahead with its plans for setting up a $300 m steel works at
Jervis Bay. This did not eventuate.

Although permanent railway connections between
Canberra and Jervis Bay, and between Nowra and Jervis
Bay never eventuated, a temporary construction railway
was built at Jervis Bay in 1915 to convey rock from a
quarry just east of the Naval College to a harbour
breakwater, at that time being extended to a total length of 240
yards. The steam locomotive transhipped from Sydney to
operate the railway was a standard gauge NSWGR P(127)
class locomotive, originally imported in 1879 to operate
the Richmond branch line in Sydney.

Canberra — Yass Railway

The Seat of Government Acceptance Act, 1909, provides
that, in the event of the Commonwealth Government
constructing a railway in the Territory to its Northern
Boundary, the State of NSW shall construct a railway
from a point near Yass on the Great Southern- Railway to
join the said railway, and the Commonwealth and State
shall grant to each other such reciprocal running rights as
may be agreed upon, or as, in default of agreement, may be
determined by arbitration over such portions of that
railway as are owned by each.

Fig. 2.32: The proposed Nowra to Jervis Bay connection.
Diagram from data on file at Australian Archives.

Pursuant to the above, the Minister for Home Affairs,
George Fuller, on 17 April 1910, approved of Surveyor
Marshall (who appears to have done more than his fair
share in locating the railways proposed for the ACT)
carrying out a trial survey within the ACT to the northern
border, or to be more correct, the north-western border,
for a line to Yass.

It appears the NSW Railways commenced their survey
from the border to Yass at about the same time, for
it was reported in the Bi-Monthly Digest of 1 November
1916 that trial surveys from the boundary of the Federal
Territory towards Yass, a distance of 32 miles (51 km), had
been completed by NSW.

The trial survey was based on a ruling grade of 1 in 100
with minimum radius curves of 15 chains — an extravagance
which was later criticised by the Commissioner of
the Commonwealth Railways in October 1917, as the
connecting State line has much steeper grades. He
suggested the line be re-surveyed on the basis of a ruling
grade of 1 in 66 with the following grade compensation on
curves:

Curve Radius

Ruling Grade

20 Chains

1 in 75

25 "

1 in 75

30 "

1 in 70

35 "

1 in 70

40 "

1 in 70

(one chain=20.1 m)

Minimum curve radius was to be 20 chains.

Although agreeing in principle, the NSW Railway
Commissioner objected to paying the cost of a further
survey, estimated at approximately £1,900, on the grounds
that he had already paid the cost of the original survey.
However, an amount of £2,000 was eventually included in
the NSW estimates for 1921-22 and the survey was
commenced in March 1922.

On 10 April 1923, the Prime Minister, Mr Bruce, was
informed that the working survey was complete. Based on
a total length of 27 m 54 ch., and with 80 lb rail fully
ballasted, the estimated cost to build the NSW section of
the line was £295,725.

In a letter dated 25 February 1924, the NSW Premier
made it clear that, because of serious financial restrictions
his State was experiencing, NSW could not promise an
early start, even if the Commonwealth started its section.

At this time however, a Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Public Works was examining evidence relating to
the proposed construction of the railway to connect
Canberra and Yass and in May 1924, the Committee
published its findings.

Amongst these was a recommendation that the line be
terminated as near as possible to the theoretical point on
the City Railway 205 1/2 miles from Sydney — a point a
little north of Civic Centre.

The estimated total cost of the line from Yass to
Canberra, as published in the Committee’s report, was
£743,745, of which the Commonwealth would have had to
provide £433,000. On the other hand, should the
Committee’s recommendation to terminate the line at mileage
205 1/2 be accepted, the cost to the Government was
estimated at £131,000.

The decision having been taken to terminate the line at
mileage 205 1/2, the Prime Minister informed the NSW
Premier that ‘it was improbable that the construction of the
line to Yass would be undertaken at present’. This was
confirmed by The Melbourne Age which told its readers on
21 August 1925 that the Minister for Home and
Territories, Senator Pearce, had said that expert opinion was at
present hostile to building the Canberra-Yass Railway.

A small ray of hope was injected the following year
when, following a deputation from the Chamber of
Commerce and the Yass Railway League to Prime Minister
Bruce, John Butters, Commissioner of the Federal Capital
Commission, said he felt there should be some better
connection of Canberra to the Sydney-Melbourne line,
and the matter was receiving the consideration of the
Government.

Fig. 2.34: The 1916 and 1965 Trial Surveys for a Railway
connection between Canberra and Yass.
Diagram: the author, prepared from data
furnished by SRA of NSW archives and CR
archives.

As with the Canberra-Jervis Bay proposals the apparent
demise of the Canberra-Yass proposal was followed by
many protests from Yass and other country districts, many
of whom believed there were better options than to
connect in at Yass. The Adelong Railway League, for
example, felt that the railway from Melbourne to Canberra
should pass through their area. Others considered the
Canberra line should come through Tumut to Wagga.

The searching round for alternatives reached the most
improbable height when The Canberra Times of 2
December 1926 announced that a survey for a railway from
Albury to Canberra was ‘in prospect’.

Since the 1925 report, the project has been reviewed a
revise number of times — for example in 1934, the ACT
Advisory Council suggested that the time had arrived to
the estimates for the Canberra-Yass Railway.

Nothing significant however, occurred for another 22
years until, in October 1966, the Secretary of the
Commonwealth Railways advised that consideration was
being given to altering the location of the originally
proposed route where it passed through the ACT.

An aerial survey was accordingly undertaken in order to
assist in a determination being made as to the practicability
of the new route on NSW territory. The Canberra Times
of 31 August 1965 reported:

‘A new aerial survey of a proposed rail route to Yass is to
begin this year, which will enable a firm decision to be made
on the site for Canberra’s new passenger terminal, for which
about four chains of lease land had been set aside
provisionally, one quarter of a mile along Majura Road, Pialligo
on the Canberra side of Woolshed Creek’.

On 14 September of the same year, The Canberra Times
carried a headline:

‘Rail Link with Yass Supported by the Advisory Council’.

Plans produced by aerial photogrammetry, together
with a locality map, trial plan and longitudinal sections
were subsequently forwarded to the Secretary,
Commonwealth Railways, in March 1967. The preliminary estimate
of the new route, exclusive of signalling and land
resumptions, was £10,490,000 and was based on the
following specifications:

‘Belconnen Rail Link Announced. Commonwealth
Railways have foreshadowed a rail link to Belconnen as part of
its forward planning for the ACT.’

Canberra Courier

‘Another Rail Terminal Planned.

A railway passenger terminal west of the Canberra Airport is
envisaged in planning for railway facilities in the ACT. It is
believed such developments could be included in a report to
reach the Minister for Supply and Transport this week’.

The Canberra Times

The report from Commonwealth Railways did not reach
the Minister until December1969 and the conclusion of the
report was that action should be taken to implement the
construction of the Canberra-Yass Railway. This
conclusion was not supported by the Commonwealth
Government which considered that further investigation
was warranted. On 21 April 1971, The Canberra News
reported:

‘A new investigation will be carried out into the proposed
railway between Canberra and Yass. The Bureau of
Transport Economics has been asked to make a detailed
examination and report, the Minister announced today. Mr
Nixon said the estimated cost of the railway, its route and
the assessed benefits as reported by the Railways
Commissioner could not be regarded as final’.

In reply to a question in the House of Representatives on
9 May 1972 the Minister said:

‘As a result of a recently completed Bureau of Transport
Economics evaluation of a proposed line between Canberra
and Yass the proposal was not found to be economically
justified. Accordingly there is no plan to proceed any
further with the project as it is Government Policy that
funds will only be provided for those railway projects where
it can be demonstrated that the expected benefits exceed the
cost involved in their construction’.

Three years later, the Minister for the Capital Territory,
Gordon Bryant, made an attempt to have the matter
reconsidered, but he was not supported by his colleagues.

Three or four years later again, the Commonwealth
Department of Traffic and Tfansport, having regard to the
totally changed energy environment since the 1971
investigation by the Bureau of Transport Economics,
decided to take a fresh look at the long standing proposal to
build a line from Canberra to Yass.

This was also prompted by the attention drawn in a
recent Sydney-Melbourne railway electrification study, to
the very unsatisfactory alignment of the main line from
Goulburn to Yass and Junee. It was felt that if a
re-alignment of the Goulburn-Yass section was considered in
conjunction with Canberra’s rail needs, an attractive
proposal could emerge.

Some initial work has been carried out by the
Department at time of writing, with a view to relocating the
Goulburn-Yass line about 15 km south of the existing line,
to a 160 kph standard, and a suitable route is believed to
have been found.

A new line north from Canberra could connect with
such a Goulburn-Yass re-alignment, at a point about
30 km east of Yass, and only about 40 km in length.

The proposal would avoid the need for upgrading the
existing Goulburn-Yass connection 70 km long.

Many other advantages are claimed. Not only would
travel time from Goulburn to Yass be reduced by 40
minutes, but also a journey time of 3 hours from Sydney to
Canberra with the new XPT trains, would be feasible.
Canberra-Melbourne direct services could be operated at
an estimated trip time of 6 1/2 hours.

The Australian Railway Historical Society in the ACT

The Australian Railway Historical Society was founded in
Sydney in 1933 to promote the study and discussion of all
aspects of railway history and operation. A Branch of the
NSW Division of the Society was formed in Canberra in
1967, which became a Division in its own right in 1975.

In 1974, the Society was approached by the Committee
of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections to accept
responsibility for the restoration and operation of one of
the last remaining examples of the Garratt locomotives of
the Public Transport Commission of NSW. At the end of
the engine’s useful life it was agreed that the locomotive
revert to the Commonwealth Government for display in a
future National Transport Museum.

Restoration work on the locomotive was completed by
the Society’s members in July 1976. A set of passenger
carriages had been acquired, and the sound of a steam
chime whistle was heard again in Canberra after a silence of
many years.

A second engine of a smaller type was subsequently
obtained by the Society and steam operated tours for the
public have been a regular feature of the Society’s
operations every year.

Although the Beyer-Garratt locomotive was typical of
the steam locomotive in its final development in this
country, it was not part of the heritage of the ACT as it had
never operated south of Captains Flat. Nevertheless the
running of the Society’s trains is providing a glimpse of a
way of life which was part of the Territory’s heritage,
particularly in the period between the commencement of
passenger service in 1923 and the 1950s, say, when aircraft
superseded the railways as the accepted means of travelling
to and from the Federal Capital.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance received from
the Australian National Library, Australian National Railways,
Australian Archives and the Archives of the SRA of NSW.

The author is also grateful to Mr Bruce Macdonald, railway
historian, for kindly reviewing the material in this chapter, to Mr
Ray Minchin for assistance in tracing the history of the
brick-works locomotives, and to the Australian Railway Historical
Society for permission to use some of the material from the May
and November 1967 issues of the Bulletins of that Society.

ALAN FITZGERALD— Historic Canberra 1825-1945, Australian
Government Publishing Service for the Department of the Capital
Territory, 1977.

Fig. 2.35: A $300,000 home for historic railway equipment is being developed by the ACT Division of the Australian Railway
Historical Society in its new yards and sidings at Kingston.
Located at the end of Cunningham Street behind the old goods’ shed, the first stage of the yards calls for
levelling, fencing, laying of turnouts and track and construction of facilities block.
Later development is expected to include additional trackwork, a turntable and locomotive shed. Total cost of
the project is expected to be about S300, 000, most of which will come from society funds.
The yards will provide a home for the society’s locomotives and rolling stock. Carriage sheds and workshops
will be built on the site and it will function both as a working depot and a museum.